Are there similarities between what is described in the discourse on the link below and MCF?

Ref: Here.

It is very dangerous to think of MCF as a business where the officials can use the authority vested in the Association to attack players not in their training "University" or to attack their better competitors in the market place.

And it is very dangerous to seek public office just to gain those type of power.

MCF is to serve the chess community and not the other way around. The chess community should not be seen as a captive bank account to enrich a few individuals no matter how badly MCF performs.

What we need to progress are more new ideas from a mind sport and not doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

We cannot progress by using the authority vested in MCF to kill off any new initiatives. If the idea is no good then the market place will take care of it. MCF should also not become the place of last refuge for people with no more ideas and cannot survive in the market place without a crutch. If they are of no use out there anymore what do you think they can bring into MCF?

Do think on this and decide for yourself.